March 16, 2010

Is this what it all comes down to in the end, something that we must struggle even to comprehend, let alone swallow? If it does, how will the members of Congress, when they go home to their constituents, even begin to explain what they have done? Citizens are already angry and resistant to the health care bill. Can you imagine the shouts of derision and outrage that will drown out any attempt to describe what the hell it means to deem and pass?

ADDED: Think of the legislative process as a long drive through the mountains and... Oh, no! Up ahead! It's Demon Pass!

AND: Let's start pronouncing the word "Democrats" with a long "e": Deemocrats. Alternatively: Demoncrats or DemonPassCrats.

270 comments:

Every time I think the Dems' obsession with passing Obamacare can't possibly get any more farcical, they fool me again.

WTF - now they're passing bills they actually never voted on? How 'bout we just fire the whole bunch and save, oh, several hundreds of billions a year just by stopping such nonsense, and downsizing the monster that keeps eating the entire federal budget?

Here's how that will work: Rather than passing the Senate bill and then passing the fixes, the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House "deems" the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes.

The virtue of this, for Pelosi's members, is that they don't actually vote on the Senate bill. They only vote on the reconciliation package. But their vote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill. The difference is semantic, but the bottom line is this: When the House votes on the reconciliation fixes, the Senate bill is passed, even if the Senate hasn't voted on the reconciliation fixes, and even though the House never specifically voted on the Senate bill.

Professor- In your understanding of the 1998 SCOTUS ruling Clinton vs. City of New York that the President cannot constitutionally sign a bill that is not exactly the same in both House and Senate versions?

There will soon be blood. One thing is guaranteed: the best and the brightest will not save us from these thugs because for the best and the brightest nothing is worth dying for, they're too sophisticated for that. No. It will be up to ordinary people to risk their lives for liberty.

Obama said he wouldn't campaign for any Democrat who voted against the healthcare bill. However, since voting for or against this bill isn't really voting for or against healthcare reform, does that mean Obama will still campaign for Democrats who vote against this bill.

ripic just said a mouthful. The Smartest conive a way not to fight in wars themselves. This may end the government by educated aristocrats we have known for 70 years and replace it with a temporary government by a Military Junta. It is very sad that Obama ever got his hands onto the power to destroy us.

If they have the votes they are for the doctored up version of Senate Bill, not the Senate Bill per se.

They can not pass both the Senate Bill and the reconcillation package on individual votes.

The current fiction seems to be that somehow the 'deem and pass' (demon pass? is that where you find demon sheep?) will enable Pelosi to avoid enrolling the Senate Bill after the House passes the rule, thus avoid the need to present the Bill to Obama for signature prior to the Senate voting on the reconcillation package.

My best guess is that this is mostly sleight of hand, and that when reconcilliation dies the death of a thousand GOP points of order in the Senate, Pelosi and Reid are going to pull out HR3950 and attest that it passed both Houses as per Article I Sect 7.

1) Now that Demon Pass is becoming public knowledge - and certainly will become such if it's actually used - the entire purpose of it is lost.

a) No reconciliation bill is going to be passed. Period. The Senate has ZERO motivation. Any argument to the contrary is either a bunch of lies or a passel of ignorance - and should be given the appropriate amount of attention.b) Therefore, the Senate bill will be the law of the land.c) Ergo, any House Democrat who voted for the rule will have voted for the Senate bill and will look like John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry if s/he tries to claim otherwise.

2) I have no doubt that any number of parties: from the Republicans, to independent think tanks, to private citizens, to state attorneys general, are or have been preparing constitutional challenges to various aspects of ObamaCare already. The Democrats are bound and determined to provoke a full-on Constitutional crisis - and I don't believe this is accidental.

3) Someone's going to get hurt. I guarantee it. There's a limit to how far people can be pushed. The only thing which prevents violence in this country is the perception that - while there may be disappointments from time to time - overall "the system works." The Democrats are in the process of proving to the citizenry that they can - AND WILL - break "the system" any time they want. That's not going to end well.

(And before any of the Leftists here decide to get snarky about that, remember which side of that divide has voluntarily disarmed itself.)

This is really pretty straight forward. Look at the Democratic Congress like you would a Toyota Prius that can't be stopped. Later it will be claimed that it was a ghost problem that cannot be duplicated but which nevertheless occurred. Things like this happen all the time, without explanation. Get used to it.

"I fully support healthcare reform and the bill endorsed by President Obama. Yes, I did not vote in favor of deeming the bill passed, however that is not the same as voting against it. I only wish the Democratic leadership had decided to present the bill for a vote on the floor of the House, which I gladly would have assented to."

Senator Lincoln is running re-election ads saying she didn’t vote for the “public option” that would harm Arkansans or something. I think she’s trying to trick people into thinking she didn’t vote for the bill, but nobody is fooled.

Garage- At the end of the day, the legislation will be a failure if a large majority of the citizenry is against it. By pulling these legislative shenanigans, the citizenry will become even more against the bill. Large scale protests by patients, doctors refusing to see medicare, medicaid patients, uninsured young people refusing to buy insurance: it cannot work. If a bill can garner at least 20% of the opposition, people accept it. When it cannot get even one opposition vote, and the citizenry opposes the particular bill by a 2 to 1 margin you are no longer living in reality. What good is a law that nobody respects?

As for hopes of a SCOTUS overturn, I doubt that will be happening. I don't think the Constitution actually lists requirements for voting for anything but impeachment and courts will defer to an increasingly imperialistic Congress.

Even people who want the bill to pass are getting embarrassed by the Dems they voted for. Right and left agree much more on the importance of a valid process than most other things. This is losing support for the Dems that even the mess of a bill itself did not. They are absolutely heroic in their determination to save us. God bless their big hearts and the explosives they keep strapping on.

From Article I, Section 7: "But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively."

For those calling for pitchforks if this deem and pass occurs, I would advise you to remember the last time a massive demonstration occurred around the Capitol General MacArthur and Major Patton attacked with cavalry, bayonets, and adamsite gas.

The federal government has only increased in its willingness to use violence against its citizens. Pitchforks will never be enough. It's either the ballot box or a much more violent method. Let's try the ballot box first.

Since this is a concern trolling post, I would like to give Republicans some advice. Just like in the 08 election, Obama benefits from the criticism directed toward him being vastly out of proportion with reality. I.e., when it turned out he wasn't the devil, he looked better and his opponents looked more foolish.

This health care reform bill has been made out to be a lethal, nuclear cataclysm of destruction. If it turns out not to be as bad as Republicans have been on record saying, then the whole strategy of scorched earth opposition is going to blow up in their faces pretty badly.

Garage- At the end of the day, the legislation will be a failure if a large majority of the citizenry is against it.

I don't think a large majority are against it You can call them shenanigans, or tricks, or whatever you want. But it's been done countless times by Republicans. The Parliamentarian calls the shots on what is permissible or not, anyhow.

Obama said he wouldn't campaign for any Democrat who voted against the healthcare bill.

Is that supposed to convince the fencesitters to vote for or against the bill?

Mahal:Correct. Democrats aren't proposing anything outside the rules.Wrong. The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that the Senate cannot take up a reconciliation unless the House passes the underlying bill. Nancy and the House Dems can try this, but it's meaningless if the Senate can't proceed.

Have you tried? Start here: Republicans have filibustered for a full year in the Senate, not allowing a simple majority vote!Wrong again. The Republicans have threatened to filibuster, and that has been enough for Dems to stand down. And can you blame the Republicans anymore? The Democrats have become conditioned to capitulate at the first hint of a threat to filibuster--What should the Republicans do, drop their opposition out of pity for the spinelessness of their opponents?

While literally true, this is only because they're proposing to change the rules first to allow this bizarre kludge. And in some sense, it is outside the rules anyway, given that it's apparently of dubious constitutionality, given that the House and the Senate will not actually have been voting on an identical text -- the House just "deems" the identical text passed, in connection with a vote on a different bill.

All that said, the whole farce begs the question: how stupid do they think we are?

1) Actually Obama's opponents were dismissed and have been able to spend the last year plus being able to tell everyone "I TOLD YOU SO." Turns out they (we) were right all along, and his apologists (YOU) were either willfully blind or lying all along. Which are you?

2) I'm absolutely sure that people will absolutely ADORE paying all those taxes that kick in immediately - especially in a down economy. Exactly how many people who will have to pay all those new taxes do you think are going to be THANKFUL to the Democrats for the privilege of losing their jobs, having their employer drop their insurance, being driven into bankruptcy or have their house foreclosed upon? I'd like an estimate rounded to the nearest million or two.

3) Based on your response to #2, I'd like a percentage of those who will be absolutely GIDDY to go show their appreciation for this act of economic homicide by going to the polls and pulling the lever for someone who voted FOR this abomination?

4) And here's a control question: exactly what color is the sky in your world?

I just had a surgery yesterday that once again saved my life. Just after leaving the hospital, I wrote a short, honest, first-hand summary of my 9 year long fight with cancer and the state of the health care and insurance industry that handled it. I suspect it is an often experienced, but rarely expressed perspective. It's just a few paragraphs if you're interested.

This health care reform bill has been made out to be a lethal, nuclear cataclysm of destruction. If it turns out not to be as bad as Republicans have been on record saying, then the whole strategy of scorched earth opposition is going to blow up in their faces pretty badly.

The wonderful thing -- both for supporters and for opponents of the bill -- is that because of the silly tricks Democrats used to game the CBO scoring, the bill doesn't really begin until years down the road, after Obama is either safely defeated or re-elected. The talking points on both sides will remain live until at least 2013, and probably a year or two beyond, since systems and institutions won't all react to the shock immediately (though they'll probably begin bracing for impact immediately).

On the negative side, for Democrats, the first thing that does come into play is pure pain -- don't the taxes start almost immediately, with the subsidies backloaded? The taxes aren't going to break the health care system, sure, but they will piss voters off.

"If Republicans would allow a simple up or down vote on the fix bill, there would be no need for reconciliation, and the self executing rule. They can't of course, because they would lose."

The fix bill? What the fuck are you talking about you fucking moron.

A bill passed the house. A different bill passed the Senate. Neither chamber can pass the other's bill.

Therefore ... no law exists to fix. That's how our country works.

The minority has rights and we're going to exercise them.

And if you motherfuckers think you can get around us with this by deeming bills pass that haven't been passed - then the flaming debris that is going to rain down on you from the sky is your own fucking fault.

On the negative side, for Democrats, the first thing that does come into play is pure pain -- don't the taxes start almost immediately, with the subsidies backloaded? The taxes aren't going to break the health care system, sure, but they will piss voters off.

Democrats can go back home and say they fought (and won) to end pre-existing conditions, the end of rescission, beginning of the end of the donut hole by reducing by $500 and institutes a 50% discount on brand-name drugs, allowing people to continue COBRA until the exchanges are formed, all of which would begin effective immediately. And they will ask their Republican counterpart for a response what they accomplished.

So if you are right Republicans should easily take back the majority in both chambers.

Not a realistic expectation. Only 1/3 of the Senators are up for reelection, and six months or so ago, the pollsters were expecting the Republicans to struggle to keep from losing another seat. This is because they have more vulnerable seats at stake this time around. In order for the Republicans to take the Senate this election, they are going to have to take several Democratic seats that were considered safe six months ago. Possible, but not probable, even now.

If Republicans would allow a simple up or down vote on the fix bill, there would be no need for reconciliation, and the self executing rule.

The Senate parliamentarian has already ruled that the Senate bill has to become law as is before reconciliation can be passed. And the whole reconciliation or "fix" bill charade is entirely beside the point from the moment Obama signs the Senate bill. The Senate bill is law at that point. Sure, you can do a bit of reconciliation at the edges afterwards, if the Senate feels like it. But the real business is already done.

What on earth do House members think this bizarre bit of play-acting will get them?

Skyler, since I was the first person to mention pitchforks, let me be clear (ack, now I'm quoting Obama!) that I was predicting pitchforks, not by any means recommending them. I am in complete agreement with you that the ballot box would be a better place to begin -- but I have to say that the problem with this whole deem-and-pass idea is the damage it does to the whole idea of voting as a fundamental premise of democracy. If these bozos can deem a bill passed without voting for it, what's to stop them from deeming themselves re-elected even if nobody votes for them?

This health care reform bill has been made out to be a lethal, nuclear cataclysm of destruction. If it turns out not to be as bad as Republicans have been on record saying, then the whole strategy of scorched earth opposition is going to blow up in their faces pretty badly.

How about how it will immediately put private insurers out of business by requiring them to insure people with pre-existing conditions, starting a chain of events which will ends in socialized medicine?

Because it is delaying the "benefits" for four years, it may not do those things between now and the November elections. But it will do them.

"Democrats are counting on the idea that Americans are not going to care about "process".

This isn't about process. This is a bloodless coup.

Nancy Pelosi is specifically calling for the implementation of a law that has not been passed by both houses of Congress.

That's a coup.

It's illegal and immoral and we are not required to fucking stand still for it. Our Constitution does not require that we allow Nancy Pelosi to deem laws passed and we have to just sit here and take it.

She is, by her actions, justifying her removal from the House of Representatives by any means and that force necessary to secure the liberty of all Americans.

@ Monty; I lurk here (mostly) and usually know what you and Garage are going to say before you say it (which is boring). However, assuming you still have some shred of intellectual integrity, what you're supporting here is bad process, bad government, and probably unconstitutional. In the real world process matters and empathy is not the only value of significance in our society.

I'm a pretty low key guy and work in medical device. This thing stinks and I think you and your fellow travelers are sowing the wind. Maybe you're right and they'll be no whirlwind when the public comes to see your enlightened wisdom; but, you and your party's real goals now stand naked and I will have no sympathy for whatever befalls the self righteous fools who believe process, public hesitation, and minority rights in developing legislation could simply be ignored in pursuit of their dogmatic beliefs.

You know, it is not going to be enough to vote these people out. Something needs to be done to make an example of them so that future Congresses will not be tempted to go down the same path. I don't think we will be able to get them on charges of treason... though they have certainly committed it in spirit if not in law. But I see no reason not to threaten them with it.

Hopefully, there are people here with better ideas of how to accomplish the same result.

BTW, the tell for how far Obama and his minions would be willing to go was Honduras.

I typically disagree with this fellow. But to his credit he is not following the herd of sheep. His comments apply to this vote as well as to reconciliation:

Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of “deem and pass.”

Republicans who now complain about tactics have very little to stand on given this history… This is a legitimate mechanism and Democrats have the right to use it. They also have precedent, including what Republicans did when they were in power, on their side… .

The “deeming” procedure that the Democrats may use was in fact routinely used by House Republicans to conduct business when they were in the majority… Insuring 30 million uninsured Americans is far more important than the procedural rule that is followed in getting it done. It is time to finish this up and get on with the business of the country. .

You can't seriously believe anyone is falling for your AstroTurf talking points, do you? Norman Ornstein is going to get a lot of Jews killed is all he's going to do. Somebody should yank his fucking leash.

You people are going to reap the wind and it's going to be one hell of a show.

Anyone else get Johnny Cash's God's Gonna Cut You Down running through their head whenever we start discussing health care and the Democrat's future?

The article said this is not a new way of passing laws. I'd be interested in what circumstances obtained during earlier uses, if they were controversial. The problem with institutionalizing these marginal techniques is that the next party in power can more easily use them. Paybacks and all that.

You can't seriously believe anyone is falling for your AstroTurf talking points, do you? Norman Ornstein is going to get a lot of Jews killed is all he's going to do. Somebody should yank his fucking leash.

You people are going to reap the wind and it's going to be one hell of a show. .

You're not bringing anything except a bunch of manufactured quotes from fellow travelers claiming "Rethugs did it before ... Rethugs did it before" as a way of trying to tamp down the violence that you will precipitate with your coup attempt.

AL you remain an insulting piece of pig shit. You don't even understand that your insulting use of "teabagging" is a gross insult, do you even understand what that term means? Aren't you supposed to be tolerant of others?

"Just like in the 08 election, Obama benefits from the criticism directed toward him being vastly out of proportion with reality. I.e., when it turned out he wasn't the devil, he looked better and his opponents looked more foolish."

Well that didn't last long did it? And that was before anyone knew who they were talking about. Now we know all too well and neither side likes what it sees in this man. Even those without the courage to be honest about it.

"Have you tried? Start here: Republicans have filibustered for a full year in the Senate, not allowing a simple majority vote!"

That's because it's not subject to a simple majority vote. Duh. It's subject to the rules of the Senate. If you don't understand the historical importance of those rules and procedures, and the protections they provide us, I suggest you check here and educate yourself.

AL: Know your facts, idiotic F'Head. Anderson Cooper, your sweetheart first used that term of insult. Tea Partiers never used that term until your types began it. Hell, most people didn't understand what that term meant until your types throw out as an insult.

I forgot, you wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the head. In your case, maybe your sweety Anderson or maybe fls might know what a fact it.

"The ballot box and soap box are plenty powerful--no need to start pulling out the ammunition boxes. It's becoming increasingly clear that the Dems are either going to lose by a large margin or an even larger margin. Empirical results are due this November."

If Nancy Pelosi completes her coup - Americans should absolutely not wait until the next election to act.

Look folks ... Nancy Pelosi is attempting to place onto the President's desk a bill the exact language of which has not been voted on by both houses of Congress. They intend to "deem" this a law.

That is outside the Constitution it represents a coup against the United States of America. We are not bound to accept it.

This requires every American who has ever said the Pledge of Allegiance to stand up and do what is necessary to secure the liberty of your fellow citizens.

We simply cannot sit idly by while the Speaker of the House executes a coup against the people we sent there to vote for us in our stead.

These are times that try men's souls, but we have been brought to this brink by people acting outside their Constitutional authority.

A lot of people want health care reform. I hope like hell we get the ball rolling with this, warts and all.What if it works and we do spend less on healthcare?That would be good. If it doesnt "work" for the American people-everyone gets voted out. Looks like the system is working.

What part of the Constitution do allege is being violated? Get specific.

Without affirming that I necessarily agree with this analysis -- I haven't made up my mind -- the argument would be that it violates Section 7, the requirement that both houses pass the legislation:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law . . . . But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

Two problems arise:

(1) The bills voted on by the two Houses aren't identical, so it's not a valid law. (2) The Representatives aren't actually voting "for and against the Bill," as required by the Constitution. They're voting that the Bill should be "deemed" to have been passed.

The Supreme Court has indicated that the text voted on by both the House and the Senate needs to be identical:

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became "Public Law 105-33" after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may "become a law." Art. I, Sec. 7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105-33 would not have been validly enacted.

And in fact, that identity between the text voted on by the House and the Senate is kind of crucial -- that's the whole reason there's a House-Senate conference, and a second round of voting. Otherwise, you could just have the House pass one bill, the Senate pass a slightly different bill, and the components that happened to match up are what ends up being the law -- effectively the same as the line-item veto.

And that's more or less what the Slaughter solution, as I understand it, is doing. The Slaughter Solution, while it attempts to hide the vote in the guise of a rule change, is -- if we're being charitable -- a vote on a bill that is not identical to the Senate bill. Instead, it just incorporates the Senate bill by reference, together with other stuff about rules. Bills aren't identical, so it can't become a law.

If we're not being charitable, the House isn't even voting on the Senate Bill, as required under the Constitution, so it can't become a law.

Alpha, I wouldn't really know, not a Beck watcher. What I do know is that he is a caricature who so perfectly fits those you rail against that he cannot be taken seriously by anyone hoping to engage in serious conversation. Yet, you do.

"Without affirming that I necessarily agree with this analysis -- I haven't made up my mind -- the argument would be that it violates Section 7, the requirement that both houses pass the legislation:"

What is the point Balfeagor?

They'll just deny that you're analyzing the Constitution correctly and they'll still act extra-Constitutionally knowing it will take 8 years before this ever gets to the Supreme Court and by then it's a fait accompli.

The time for debating these fucking assholes is over. It's time to beat them down.

They've been defeated in the debate, and they've been defeated by a vote count. Neither side of the Hill can get the other side to agree to its legislation and so now Nancy Pelosi has announced that she is going to deem a Senate-passed bill passed in the House.

Sorry, I misunderstood the Slaughter Solution -- reading a little more, it sounds even worse for its Constitutionality. If it's that they're going to implement a rule that says that when the "fix" bill is passed, the Senate Bill is deemed passed, then the text voted on by the two houses seems even more clearly different. It's two different bills, after all. And the problem with the bill being passed by Yeas and Nays and those votes being recorded in the Hansard remains.

Old Dad, you caught my sloppy writing of which ashamed I am. My "he" of caricature should have been written "New Ham." Apologies. And thanks for pointing it out so I could correct. And thanks for confirming that I need not watch Beck.

The Libs trying to pass along the lie that this is nothing unusual are beclowned every second that Nancy and Co. are trying to figure out how to pull it off. It's called the "Slaughter Rule" for a reason, and the stupid crone just came up with it a couple weeks ago. If it'd been done before, it'd be done by now.The only thing routine about this is the level of arrogance and contempt for American principles being displayed by the Dem leadership.

All I can say is if the Democrats pursue this then Republicans have no obligation to follow the strictures of the Constitution when they take over in November. Never did like that pesky fourth amendment anyhow.

The so-called “Slaughter solution” for enacting health care reform without a conventional House vote on an identically worded Senate bill would be vulnerable to credible constitutional challenge, experts say.

No lawyer interviewed by POLITICO thought the constitutionality of the “deem and pass” approach being considered by House Democrats was an open-and-shut case either way. But most agreed that it could raise constitutional issues sufficiently credible that the Supreme Court might get interested, as it has in the past.

“If I were advising somebody," on whether deem and pass would run into constitutional trouble, "I would say to them, ‘Don’t do it,’” said Alan Morrison, a professor at the George Washington University Law School who has litigated similar issues before the Supreme Court on behalf of the watchdog organization Public Citizen. “What does ‘deem’ mean? In class I always say it means ‘let's pretend.’ 'Deems' means it's not true.”

Any challenge likely would be based on two Supreme Court rulings, one in 1983 and the other in 1998, in which the court held that there is only one way to enact a law under the Constitution: it must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

"All I can say is if the Democrats pursue this then Republicans have no obligation to follow the strictures of the Constitution when they take over in November."

Now this I disagree with. Listen up Eric:

First, if Nancy Pelosi executes this coup, and deems the Senate bill passed by the House, the entire Republican Party should resign from the Congress en masse as a protest and refuse to serve out their terms in a government that no longer represents the people.

This coup attempt cannot be allowed to stand.

Nancy Pelosi needs to be removed from the floor of the House of Representatives, by that due force necessary to secure the liberty of the people of the United States.

When (if) Republicans take back control of the House and Senate in November, they goddamned well better follow the Constitution.

Just because the Democrat Party is acting illegally and extra-Constitutionally oesn't give license for the Republicans to do so.

The “deeming” procedure that the Democrats may use was in fact routinely used by House Republicans to conduct business when they were in the majority… Insuring 30 million uninsured Americans is far more important than the procedural rule that is followed in getting it done. It is time to finish this up and get on with the business of the country.

Except that it doesn't really do that, and if and when it does, it will be 4 or so years down the road. Remember that the Senate bill got scored by comparing ten years of revenue/taxes to six years of benefits.

Besides the 30 million figure is bogus anyway. For one thing, it includes a huge number of voluntarily uninsured, in particular, the late teens through twenties, mostly males, who think themselves bullet-proof. They would rather spend their money on parties than health insurance. Of course, they will no longer be able to do this, with mandated coverage. And, many of them will be priced out of the work market due to higher costs of employing workers due to the mandate of covering all employees. So, they will now be unemployed, but insured (in four years). Great work there.

They do not care. History must be made- just like Social Security and Medicare. They are not crafting legislation. They are making history. Just ask Nancy Pelosi. That is all that senile old bat can repeat over and over again.

Which citizens? Where? I wonder what the typical Madisonian on the street thinks about health care reform.

As with all issues, the typical citizen -- and the typical Madisonian -- probably doesn't think much about health care reform one way or the other. Better things to do with their time. A minority of citizens is fired up in favour of the Senate Bill. And a rather larger minority of citizens is fired up against the Senate Bill. The plurality doesn't care.

Deeming anything with respect to law is in essence despotism and tyranny. Thanks for finally showing your true colors democrats and leftists. The gloves are off. I officially hate not only the ideology, but the people who practice it. It isn't even about loving the sinner and hating the sin. Now I hate the sinners as well. I'm done getting you to see how truly foolish your beliefs are. Now it's time to wipe you out and eliminate you if possible. Political genocide if necessary. You are a danger to society and a danger to this country. You have shit on everything this country stands for and I won't let you do it anymore. You are an ideological menace. Words have failed.

AND: Let's start pronouncing the word "Democrats" with a long "e": Deemocrats. Alternatively: Demoncrats or DemonPassCrats.

How about no . . . is there anything more irritating than the cutesey names people use to denigrate the other side? Well yes (giant papier-mache protest puppets), but it's still awfully annoying. "Repuglicans." "Dhimmicrats," etc. etc. Children, please!

By the way: Direct government loans to college students started during Ike's administration, to help us keep up with the Russkies. They were even called "National Defense Student Loans." Later the name was changed to "National Direct Student Loans."

It's about denying health insurance to sick people. That leaves many sick people the choice between bankruptcy or premature death.

Pre-existing conditions and sick people aren't the same thing. My mother, for exampe, has a pre-existing condition, but she's not "sick" in any meaningful sense -- it just means that she's uninsurable for certain problems, because they're predictable outgrowths of her current condition. If anything like that comes up, we'll pay for it, or go without.

Of course, the abusive type of pre-existing condition is the one where the sick person waits until he gets sick (with an ordinary illness, not a long-term thing), and then demands that the insurance company pay for his health care. And that's what the bill is promising people, because everyone likes to think they have the option of pushing their costs onto someone else (to wit, the fools who've been paying for insurance all this time).

If someone has a pre-existing condition and did not insure against it before it developed, I wouldn't be averse to some sort of high-cost reinsurance pool that helps ameliorate the cost of treatment (though treatment, of course, won't always heal). But it has to be priced to deter abuse, which means as much of the cost of treatment needs to be pushed onto the individual as he can bear. For some conditions, this isn't going to be very much, since the condition may be debilitating, and prevent him from working, etc. But for others, it's a pre-existing condition, but you can still work, and still earn income, etc. There are some people who are genuinely un-insurable, and it would be reasonable to put together legislation to address that problem.

That's not what the Senate bill does -- it just has a blanket ban. Because that's what's popular.

To recap:1) A group of elected representatives have assembled a proposal and passed various forms of it that that affects the governed in ways they do not support.

2) Contained in the proposals are measures questionable to those enamored of liberty and rights - specifically mandates requiring private citizens to purchase a service; requiring insurers to modify both existing and new contracts; and requiring businesses to alter employment terms. For those of us who find big state to be a threat to individual enterprise the proposals also create new entitlements and substantially modify existing entitlements. These seem principled objections, not merely obstruction.

3) The public, the opposition party, and voters have each expressed their disapproval of the bill to the maximum extent possible using the methods permitted in our system.

4) The current majority of elected representatives now seek to bypass regular procedure to pass these proposals - against their own rules (using reconciliation) and against the written procedures upon which we base their very authority.

Under what rationale do we "reconcile" that now they are not representative of our (over 50% of the populace’s) desires, and now not following their own rules, and now not following constitutional protocols under which we have granted them the authority to pass laws? Moreover, we are to respect this law (if passed) as legitimate? In addition, their right to govern as legitimate?

I depart a little from the conventional wisdom here, but only to say that the "deem and pass" scheme is so transparently stupid, its effect will be worse than if House members from reddish districts actually voted for the Senate bill openly in their underwear on the Capitol Mall.

Not only will some of them have gone back on their word and/or voted in a way that's contrary to their district's sentiments -- which is clearly why this scheme was concocted, the spare them from such a vote -- but they'll be blamed for having participated in a lame attempt to defraud the voters on exactly what they did.

Especially if the Senate can't pass reconciliation and, after shedding the requisite number of crocodile tears, Obama signs the Senate Bill that the House deemed to be passed. The "deemers" still have to vote, and their vote will be recorded as in favor of the Senate bill.

The first House member who answers the charge that he or she voted for the Cornhusker Kickback, or the excise tax on Cadillac plans by saying, "No, I never voted for the Senate bill, just for reconciliation," will hear nothing but rude noises for the rest of their campaign, and will be doomed. It makes "I voted for the bill before I voted against it" sound like courage under fire.

This has to be a strategy that was suggested by Karl Rove. It is politically pathetic, transparently so, a poison pill for deluded Democrats.

It's about denying health insurance to sick people. That leaves many sick people the choice between bankruptcy or premature death.

Well, no. Both are false choices. Convenient to your argument, but false. The study with the medical bankruptcies assumed that every bankruptcy that had some medical debt was a medical care caused bankruptcy.

And, the lower life expectancy of those without health insurance was assumed to be a result of the lack of health insurance. But it turns out that they are just less healthy. Why? One suggestion is that people who don't carry health insurance are more likely to engage in riskier behavior, such as smoking.

I am repeating a story that I told several times when this debate got started, way back when, maybe a year ago: Several years ago, I worked for awhile part time at a ski area with a number of late teens and esp. early to mid 20 year old males. One of the guys tried to flip on his board on his day off, and landed on his head/neck. Hauled him off the mountain on a backboard (embarrassing, since we worked for the ski patrol). He was checked out at the bottom, including an X-ray. But he couldn't be released to work (on skis/board) without a CAT scan. No money, no CAT scan, so he spent the rest of the season as our dispatcher, riding up the lift in the morning, and down at night. No fun.

A bunch of us got to talking one day over lunch, and it turns out that the ski area (part of Vail Resorts) provided accident insurance for $10 a month, and that would have covered the CAT scan. And I think that they could have gotten regular medical for under $100 a month. But none of these guys had signed up for either. They were all totally uninsured. The $10 was less than three beers a month, but they preferred the beers to the accident insurance.

I should note that pretty much every one of them routinely engaged in what most of us would consider high risk activities, including smoking, drinking, drugs, as well as skiing or riding at excessive speeds, jumping, flips, etc.

If you see a way I can get out of buying auto liability insurance, please let me know.

That is a totally false argument. The reason for mandatory auto insurance- which I am against- is so someone can get paid. It does nothing to increase safe roads. In Illinois, you do not even need a license to get it. You are not insured, the car is. Driving is deemed a privilege not a right. Just ask the SCOTUS.

Mandatory health insurance forces people to purchase an intangible consumer financial product for no reason other than to allegedly keep rates low. If you do not buy this you will be penalized financially and criminally- if you do not pay the penalty.

There is no state benefit to mandatory insurance. None. The government is forcing you to buy a consumer product. What next, mandatory savings accounts, checking accounts, credit cards, TVs, autos, soap and deodorant?